World Restructuring

[Diku.2546]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

@Chaba.5410 said:What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

---

I'd like to apologize for being cryptic, but I'm referencing a famous & well-know swordsman's teaching.

Miyamoto Mushashi's Book of Five Rings....is a very literal documentation of his life's wisdom as a warrior.

I hope I don't muddle up what Miyamoto Mushashi is saying below with my edits....but here goes:

---

Know the small things & big things.

How to win in large-scale applies to small-scale. Reverse can be said to be true.

As Miyamoto Musashi tried to impart to his followers regarding "His Way" (Heiho).

"You must research this well. "

---

Strategy: "Heiho" is a word of Chinese derivation meaning military strategy. "Hei" means soldier and "Ho" meansmethod or form.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

Some in here recently seem to be having a comprehension issue with my post.

I did not say pugs won't be able to join or play in the green/blue/red worlds - if that is how you took, please let me clarify again.

I mean pugs won't have a wvw experience that is a wvw experience - either similar to what they experience now in wvw or similar to what all other players in the new and improved system will experience. They will be kicked to the curb. THat is inherent in the design - anet is not kicking the guilds to the curb - they are giving them total control, with not only no input from the pugs, but no place for the pugs either.

Think about it - you have say, for example - 1 guild each on 5 maps for a total of 5 guilds (50 people each guild - assume nice robust guilds/players)working together in an alliance. You have another 100 pugs per map. (This is an example - I don't know what the actual number will be).

All of those guilds are fighting guilds, working hard to win, forming a super alliance. They are all closed squads - ie - must have right builds/class/gear/attitudes, etc. to win cuz we want to win always.

Where do pugs play? Running alongside the zerg 24/7 (or roaming/gankers - which they have no real change) - dying more, no protections, hurting the alliances (or ignored), hurting their own personal ranking/score. No opportunities to get in squad (unless someone is benevolent - oh boy, I can't wait for that) ever. If you have a zerg build running solo, you are done forever. So why play?

Many good dedicated solo silent iconoclasts are running zerg builds solo. They will be kicked to the curb.

Also, this type of system will encourage soloers to die more/play crappy so they get can affiliated with the super alliances/guilds at least every 8 weeks - but even then, their game play will be hollow EOTM experience unless they capitulate and join a guild and all the rigidity/rules/banter, etc. that entails.

I have suggested a random assignment free-for-all for everyone - you can meet up with your guildies once assigned. Open squads for everyone - everything random. It would definitely be more challenging/vibrant = it would be all inclusive and everyone working 24/7 to win. Isn't this the goal, to revitalize, rather than to impose an exclusionary punitive system that will result in more attrition and cliquishness.

I have also seen more suggestions by others, including making bg a superpower that must fend off 2 v1s for control of smc etc. This seems a good approach as well.

I am not here to suggest the perfect system - that is Anet's job, not mine. I would like my viewpoint, as a dedicated pug who plays not for rewards but for the love of the game (yes I play each night even after my diamond rewards have been met) who does not wish to be controlled or excluded by a dominating superalliance/guild composition system.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Again. Why would you NEED to go to EOTM?

And if you were that close knit with your guild, why would you get kicked out?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

It's very different. There will be at most 2 alliances which will make up 40% of the 'world'. I.e. Based on your analogy: 2 out of 5 sPvP spots. The remainder will be made up of essentially HoT joins.

The analogy doesn't work.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Again. Why would you NEED to go to EOTM?

And if you were that close knit with your guild, why would you get kicked out?

You don't understand wvw will become EoTM with the new system, if you have no guild it is essentially eotm, its identical almost to that game mode, it is no longer wvw because there are no servers. People can get kicked out for any reason, maybe the guild leader is having a bad day, and then, because you are kicked out your game play in wvw is now severely impacted in the sense that you lose cohesion and camaraderie as in the next 8 weeks you will be physically separated from your guild members, as they will go to a different wvw instance then you will.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

It's very different. There will be at most 2 alliances which will make up 40% of the 'world'. I.e. Based on your analogy: 2 out of 5 sPvP spots. The remainder will be made up of essentially HoT joins.

The analogy doesn't work.

It does work, If someone deliberately tanks their personal ranking, they will be placed on wvw maps in the next 8 weeks with the best alliances. Its theoretically possible that if you tank your personal wvw rating far enough, you might get to play with good alliances for the next 2-3 wvw matchup changes. This is what people did in spvp, to get an advantage, and it worked and anet was forced to change it.

[Auri.1365]

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

It does work, If someone deliberately tanks their personal ranking, they will be placed on wvw maps in the next 8 weeks with the best alliances. Its theoretically possible that if you tank your personal wvw rating far enough, you might get to play with good alliances for the next 2-3 wvw matchup changes. This is what people did in spvp, to get an advantage, and it worked and anet was forced to change it.

There is no personal ranking in wvw regarding skill, only play hours.If there are 9 worlds, each with a big alliance and there are several players that "tanked" their rating/play hours, these players will just be spread between the worlds. You would have no guarantee to end up with the "good alliances".Maybe big alliances find ways to game the system, e.g. a whole alliance tanking their play hours to get more additional players or even a second alliance and then they could dominate the match up. They would just have a boring match as no one would want to fight them. As we don't know the details of the system we don't know if this even would be possible.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

It's very different. There will be at most 2 alliances which will make up 40% of the 'world'. I.e. Based on your analogy: 2 out of 5 sPvP spots. The remainder will be made up of essentially HoT joins.

The analogy doesn't work.

It does work, If someone deliberately tanks their personal ranking, they will be placed on wvw maps in the next 8 weeks with the best alliances. Its theoretically possible that if you tank your personal wvw rating far enough, you might get to play with good alliances for the next 2-3 wvw matchup changes. This is what people did in spvp, to get an advantage, and it worked and anet was forced to change it.

The post above this one from @Auri.1365 explains that placement will be based on play hours per the FAQs. There is no personal ranking system other than WvW ranks, which, in either case, would move the experienced PUGs into worlds with less successful Alliances if what you atebstating is used forMatchups.

You can't tank your WvW ranks. You could tank play hours, but most vets don't want that.

And let's, for arguments sake, say people do, you would get 8 weeks of that, but then they would be bumped for the next 8 weeks.

Or they would try to join a guild in the Alliance,

There will be ways to game the alliances, if people want to, much like the way people games the current system and the links.

But it won't be to the detriment of PUGs any more than if the guilds.

[Chaba.5410]

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

@Chaba.5410 said:What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

---

I'd like to apologize for being cryptic, but I'm referencing a famous & well-know swordsman's teaching.

Miyamoto Mushashi's Book of Five Rings....is a very literal documentation of his life's wisdom as a warrior.

I hope I don't muddle up what Miyamoto Mushashi is saying below with my edits....but here goes:

---

Know the small things & big things.

How to win in large-scale applies to small-scale. Reverse can be said to be true.

As Miyamoto Musashi tried to impart to his followers regarding "His Way" (Heiho).

"You must research this well. "

---

Strategy: "Heiho" is a word of Chinese derivation meaning military strategy. "Hei" means soldier and "Ho" meansmethod or form.

So are you agreeing that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? How is that possible when the stated design of Worlds under restructuring will not be the same as a full 5-man queuing sPvP team? Nor will it even be the same as a 3-man team queuing against a full 5-man pug team since all Worlds will be made up mixed.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

@Chaba.5410 said:What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

---

I'd like to apologize for being cryptic, but I'm referencing a famous & well-know swordsman's teaching.

Miyamoto Mushashi's Book of Five Rings....is a very literal documentation of his life's wisdom as a warrior.

I hope I don't muddle up what Miyamoto Mushashi is saying below with my edits....but here goes:

---

Know the small things & big things.

How to win in large-scale applies to small-scale. Reverse can be said to be true.

As Miyamoto Musashi tried to impart to his followers regarding "His Way" (Heiho).

"You must research this well. "

---

Strategy: "Heiho" is a word of Chinese derivation meaning military strategy. "Hei" means soldier and "Ho" meansmethod or form.

So are you agreeing that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? How is that possible when the stated design of Worlds under restructuring will not be the same as a full 5-man queuing sPvP team? Nor will it even be the same as a 3-man team queuing against a full 5-man pug team since all Worlds will be made up mixed.

I expect he is advocating the idea he presented in the last forum iteration in which he was asked to stop posting it.

[Chaba.5410]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Diku.2546 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Eater of Peeps.9062" said:Have any of you considered that this proposed design will result in exactly the type of debacle and eventual diminution/attrition that occurred in spvp.

In spvp, pro/league bound teams on TS bent on getting to the top of the leaderboards at any cost trounced solo "hot join" pugs and other loosely organized players. They trounced them and sped to the top.

Why do you drawn an analogy between small sPvP teams where an entire team could enter a match together (not anymore) and essentially "force" out any hotjoins on that team with a World which will be composed of hotjoins plus allied players?

---

Hope this helps to shed some light on this topic. I'd like to quote a famous swordsman.

“Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground, the first book is called the Ground book.”

---

Also, another good reference is "Crossing the Ford".

"In strategy also it is important to "cross at a ford". Discern the enemy's capabilityand, knowing your own strong points, "cross the ford" at the advantageous place, as agood captain crosses a sea route. If you succeed in crossing at the best place, you maytake your ease. To cross at a ford means to attack the enemy's weak point, and to putyourself in an advantageous position. This is how to win in large-scale strategy. The spiritof crossing at a ford is necessary in both large — and small-scale strategy.

You must research this well. "

---

Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi

https://www.nateliason.com/lessons/book-five-rings-miyamoto-musashi/

What?

The Restructuring information says all Worlds will be composed of hotjoin pugs, guilds, and alliances. Are you agreeing with Eater of Peeps that a few Worlds will be like a full 5-man sPvP team without hotjoins and other Worlds will be only composed of hotjoin pugs? If you have something to say, you should say it directly instead of trying to be cryptic about it.

This new change is no differnt from season 1 of pvp. If someone is a pug and they want to play with good alliances? WHats to stop an individual from tanking their rating for 8 weeks so the following 8 weeks they get to play with good alliances? Or in the sense of an alliance, whats to stop an alliance from deliberately tanking their rating in order to fight against weaker alliances they can then trounce. How is this even a solution? They already tried this and it failed spectacularly in spvp.

I played in Season 1 of sPvP. Where do you get information that Restructuring is going to be exactly like it?

Why do you say that alliances are going to introduce tanking when that already occurs?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you can't get into a solid 500-player alliance? This seems soo risky, leaving the fate of players experience and sense of belonging in wvw, an open game mode, at the whim and sole discretion of guild leaders, who we all have to make nice with now or else. I just don't understand how anet could make such a decision and not factor this glaring variable in.

Why do you want to play with these people?

I don't like socializing in a guild setting, I don't like people telling me what to do or how to play. I enjoy the familiarity that a server brings and playing with these players on the server but not socializing with them or having them tell me what to do or how to play. When you join a guild, they expect you to interact which I don't want to do, they also expect a ton of other rules, show up this time per week, make sure you rep our guild, respect our officers and guild members, don't say things we dont like ect. ect. ect. I don't want to adhere to this just to play a game mode and enjoy the comradere I have with players in the manner I have it, uninterrupted for the past 6 years in a game mode that should be open to everyone and not moderated or disrupted by the whims of a guild leader/officers or other individuals. I shouldn't have to adhere to these rules made up by a guild leader just to play with the few acquaintances I have made without being cast to the winds. I enjoy playing with other players, but not getting too close and certainly not socializing in a manner in which I am required to play nice and reign in my views on everything or else.

An open game mode, and our capacity to enjoy a cohesive familiar environment that we have enjoyed for the last 6 years will now be dependent on our social skills and our desire to socialize, and I don't agree with this change.

Again you are imposing

your

restriction on guilds and saying the change is bad because of it. Restrictions that the rest of us dont have, because we are already part of guilds in exactly the way you describe how you want them. This was was solved

years

ago with the update to the guild system.

I am part of a community guild that I rarely rep (like once a week... maybe), that I rarely talk to and dont really interact with (I rarely join its guild raids as I am a roamer). And guess what - I am even an officer in the guild, lol.

Its a community guild, its just there. Free guild missions. Chat if you want company, alert on things in WvW if you want to, whatever. The only rule is you get kicked after a couple months offline, because otherwise we hit the 500 cap.

My main guild I run with every day and rep 99% of the time and is always on discord . Thats my choice. No self imposed restrictions.

Yah and what if you day something they don't like, or bring a build they don't like, or don't adhere to everything they say? Now with the new system you'll be scattered to the winds. Seems like a pretty harsh punishment, and the guilds have too much power.

No. You'll be in their world for the remainder of the 8 week matchup.

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Well yeah if the approach to community is that the community you refuse to be part of must support you because you consider it a right to be part of it despite refusing to be part of it, there's gonna be a problem.

[Chaba.5410]

@Eater of Peeps.9062 said:I mean pugs won't have a wvw experience that is a wvw experience - either similar to what they experience now in wvw or similar to what all other players in the new and improved system will experience. They will be kicked to the curb. THat is inherent in the design - anet is not kicking the guilds to the curb - they are giving them total control, with not only no input from the pugs, but no place for the pugs either.

How will it not be similar to now? Like my earlier example I joined a pug tag on my server on Saturday during the double XP weekend and I really didn't know many people in the squad. The only people who got kicked from the squad was players who went offline or were sitting in a PvE map. Squad was always practically full, commander was chat-manding - not on voice comms, map was always queued, took a defended T3 keep even, and everyone had fun. I'm pretty confident those players would do the same thing after restructuring.

Think about it - you have say, for example - 1 guild each on 5 maps for a total of 5 guilds (50 people each guild - assume nice robust guilds/players)working together in an alliance. You have another 100 pugs per map. (This is an example - I don't know what the actual number will be).

All of those guilds are fighting guilds, working hard to win, forming a super alliance. They are all closed squads - ie - must have right builds/class/gear/attitudes, etc. to win cuz we want to win always.

Why do you say all those guilds in your example are fighting guilds? What if one of those guilds is a havoc group that just goes around trying to hit objectives while a main blob is tied up with fighting? What is it about restructuring that you suggest will prevent anything other than fighting guilds?

Your example sounds way too hypothetical.

I have suggested a random assignment free-for-all for everyone - you can meet up with your guildies once assigned. Open squads for everyone - everything random. It would definitely be more challenging/vibrant = it would be all inclusive and everyone working 24/7 to win. Isn't this the goal, to revitalize, rather than to impose an exclusionary punitive system that will result in more attrition and cliquishness.

We don't know how Anet plans to form teams other than through consideration of participation levels, play hours, etc. Why do you think that randomness would lead to inclusiveness and teamwork? Can you give an example where randomness leads to kumbaya? I doubt very much that all players would suddenly change their behaviors and attitudes and become team players just because they were randomly assigned. This sounds like the topic of many a fiction story, like strangers on an airplane that crashes on an island that holds mysterious secrets.

[Caliburn.1845]

I think a lot of people don't fully understand that WvW right now is very stratified and exclusive because for most of us winning does not matter, if anything many of us try to avoid winning. So we run closed, try to shake pugs, and look for the fights we consider quality.

If alliances succeed in making people care about winning, it will become much more inclusive. You're going to be grouped with a random assortment of other alliances, guilds and solo players, and if you want to win you're going to have to at least marginally be able to work with them.

All these fears about guilds being super exclusive, and toxic, and kicking people to the curb are sort of silly when we see that numerous guilds and some entire servers are ALREADY LIKE THIS.

Some alliances will no doubt take the exclusive route. And they will lose. The alliances that are more inclusive will win. And the option of whom to join will rest in the hands of the individual player, as it should.

[hunkamania.7561]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

If alliances succeed in making people care about winning,

Where did it say that alliances would make people care about winning? It's just a population balance is all I got from it unless there's some info i didn't see.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

This comment is generally for ArenaNet. I don't see the point in giving a title for the current world you're on, when the system we're coming from invokes us to transfer. It would make more sense for that title to be rewarded based on the server your account has been on the longest. If you give a title for the current world you're on, what you'll then see is people mass transferring just for the right server title before all servers are ripped apart.

Secondly, if you want to provide time for guilds and players to join up and form alliances before the alliance overhaul drops, you should probably open all servers and allow us to do just that.

My second point isn't a big deal, but it would help some.

[Caliburn.1845]

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@"Caliburn.1845" said:

If alliances succeed in making people care about winning,

Where did it say that alliances would make people care about winning? It's just a population balance is all I got from it unless there's some info i didn't see.

The excuse a lot of people use for not playing to win is population balance. "We can't win, they just have more people than us etc etc." Take the population balance problem away, make everyone(at least early on) think they have a chance to be #1, and you'll see people try to win the week again.

Just ask someone like Xushin, he is already sniffing around talking to off-hour guilds for his potential alliance. And he is not alone.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@Auri.1365 said:

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

It does work, If someone deliberately tanks their personal ranking, they will be placed on wvw maps in the next 8 weeks with the best alliances. Its theoretically possible that if you tank your personal wvw rating far enough, you might get to play with good alliances for the next 2-3 wvw matchup changes. This is what people did in spvp, to get an advantage, and it worked and anet was forced to change it.

There is no personal ranking in wvw regarding skill, only play hours.If there are 9 worlds, each with a big alliance and there are several players that "tanked" their rating/play hours, these players will just be spread between the worlds. You would have no guarantee to end up with the "good alliances".Maybe big alliances find ways to game the system, e.g. a whole alliance tanking their play hours to get more additional players or even a second alliance and then they could dominate the match up. They would just have a boring match as no one would want to fight them. As we don't know the details of the system we don't know if this even would be possible.

This is my point exactly.

We don't know what type of algorithm will be used by anet to place pugs into worlds. It could involve skill as well as experience/hours/kills/deaths.Whatever it involves, people/guilds can always figure out a way to game the system to their advantage for maximizing placement every 8 weeks.

Anet has indicated the worlds will be balanced - thus implying that lesser skilled/lower hours pugs will be placed with good alliances (as a handicap) and that skilled/experienced/dedicated pugs will be placed with less good alliances to help them improve/balance them (again just like all seasons in spvp where exceptional hot join pugs whose rankings were tanked by organized teams on TS went on season after season "teaching" lesser experienced players with whom they were teamed under the algorithm system, basically losing every other match at best and endless streaks of losses at worst).

You even acknowledge that alliances could dominate the match up, but that they would just have a boring match as no one would want to fight them.Exactly! That is what happened in spvp - the teams at the top just kept playing the same exact players/teams over and over and they all got bored - all challenge and diversity disappeared and all the good solo pugs were stuck in lower tiers "teaching" newbies how to pvp or worse, losing endlessly.

It was proven to be a spectacular failure - even tho anet's attempt was initially hopeful/optimistic and was initially supported/encouraged by players wanting change. During those seasons, when pugs complained, the "teams" and leaderboard pros said they would self police and would be fair and would never let the worst case scenario play out. They were wrong. They didn't and eventually, they got bored and the pugs gave up, thus creating a small homogenized group of rotating "pros" at the top and new players or players playing in manners which were never intended by the design of the game were perpetually at the bottom or middle at best (though admittedly, there were some examples of amazingly inexperienced players at the top because they were lucky enough to be with teams/guilds that included them).

I am hearing the exact same proposal here and the exact same kind of assurances (with examples of how if all things go well - i.e./example - "if you play well, why would your guild drop you?" there should be no problems) that the guilds will be fair and will self police to ensure no exclusionary tactics will occur (yah, right, I don't think anyone believes that at all) and that they will ensure fairness/balance/reasonableness. This has not been my experience in this game or with people in general once the competitive spirit kicks in. People like to win. They like to form super alliances to ensure they can win. This will inevitably and necessarily lead to exclusionary tactics, which at their worst, could lead to abuses, and at best, will leave solo players with zerg builds kicked to the curb. Either way, the proposed design will not foster the goals anet wants - low maintenance, low cost, zero monitoring/tweaking of worlds, vibrancy, camaraderie, casual play, and revitalization of a sagging game mode.

[hunkamania.7561]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:

If alliances succeed in making people care about winning,

Where did it say that alliances would make people care about winning? It's just a population balance is all I got from it unless there's some info i didn't see.

The excuse a lot of people use for not playing to win is population balance. "We can't win, they just have more people than us etc etc." Take the population balance problem away, make everyone(at least early on) think they have a chance to be #1, and you'll see people try to win the week again.

Just ask someone like Xushin, he is already sniffing around talking to off-hour guilds for his potential alliance. And he is not alone.

Number 1 for what? You get nothing for winning. Balance doesn't change the waste of time with no reward ppt is. Xushin is a PPT guy still to this day so he's always gonna be about coverage and all that stuff.

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

If you are in a guild, then getting kicked from a guild happens.

right and cast to the winds like I said, and all cohesion that you have left (your guild members) is lost and now its Eotm for you. compare that to now we have servers and a community, with this change, it will be the end of all community, and your sense of community will be dictated by the whims of a guild leader/officer, so like I said, they have too much power.

Well yeah if the approach to community is that the community you refuse to be part of must support you because you consider it a right to be part of it despite refusing to be part of it, there's gonna be a problem.

I don't understand. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the alliance just as much as the guild is supporting the alliance. A pug playing without a guild is supporting the guild squad as much as guild members in the squad are - except the poor guildless pug is dying more/getting less protections from the squad he/she is running alongside, thus making it much more frustrating for the pug. Why should the pug have to join the guild in order to receive the protections of the squad when the whole point of the squad is to support the alliance (just like the pug) and win (just like the pug).

Also, why shouldn't the guild support all players? The goal is to be nice and allow all casual play and win. The pug is supporting the guild by playing. Why shouldn't the guild have to reciprocate. We don't want to have exclusion or elitism going on or encouraged. This is why self policing by guilds who are competitive and want to win is not a good idea as it will come at the expense of guildless players and solo pugs.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "you consider it a right to be part of it" (ie - the guild community) means. No one is asking for the right to be part of a guild, in fact, it appears the person you were addressing was advocating for not being forced to play with a guild to have a meaningful/not hollow wvw experience under the new system and to have a place in the new alliances worlds as a solo guildless pug (where running alongside a zerg ala EOTM is the only option).

[Eater of Peeps.9062]

@"Chaba.5410" said:

"Like my earlier example I joined a pug tag on my server on Saturday during the double XP weekend and I really didn't know many people in the squad. The only people who got kicked from the squad was players who went offline or were sitting in a PvE map. Squad was always practically full, commander was chat-manding - not on voice comms, map was always queued, took a defended T3 keep even, and everyone had fun. I'm pretty confident those players would do the same thing after restructuring."

This is just one example of a nice interaction.

By contrast, there have been countless closed squads on all maps in all servers during prime time for hours on end. To allow this to occur endlessly under the new system will effectively provide nothing more than a hollow experience for pugs - no camaraderie, no working together, no squad invites, dying more, exclusion, etc. Attrition could skyrocket until its just the same guilds with the same composition battling it out week after week - just like spvp.

"Why do you say all those guilds in your example are fighting guilds?"

Because that was the example I formulated to illustrate my point.

"What is it about restructuring that you suggest will prevent anything other than fighting guilds?"

I didn't suggest this - you did.

"Your example sounds way too hypothetical."

It was hypothetical - I don't understand how a perfectly valid possible scenario can be "too hypothetical." I am not sure what that means as I don't know how a hypothetical can be too much of a hypothetical.

"I have suggested a random assignment free-for-all for everyone - you can meet up with your guildies once assigned. Open squads for everyone - everything random. It would definitely be more challenging/vibrant = it would be all inclusive and everyone working 24/7 to win. Isn't this the goal, to revitalize, rather than to impose an exclusionary punitive system that will result in more attrition and cliquishness."

"We don't know how Anet plans to form teams other than through consideration of participation levels, play hours, etc. Why do you think that randomness would lead to inclusiveness and teamwork? Can you give an example where randomness leads to kumbaya? I doubt very much that all players would suddenly change their behaviors and attitudes and become team players just because they were randomly assigned. This sounds like the topic of many a fiction story, like strangers on an airplane that crashes on an island that holds mysterious secrets."

Because then everyone is working towards the same goal - winning - and no one is feeling excluded or kicked to the curb because guilds won't take them (since guilds would be mandatory if a player wants to be part of a squad as all squads will most likely be closed either due to exclusionary rules or due to maximum fill/size, and guild joining would be mandatory if a player wants to be as effective as possible/not die as often/obtain maximum protections (for the same reasons)).